Peter wrote:
Definitely interesting! A friend has been flying everything from piston and SET/MET GA to a CJ4 (and some Lears) and he says these planes are easier to fly than the SEPs and SETs, so long as nothing goes wrong…I see you are avoiding a certain airspace
I don´t know if the right way to put it is “easier to fly”, since this would required some definition.
I actually think that if something goes wrong, I´d much rather be in a multi engine jet than any other aircraft (other than a glider) – you just have to manage it – and most system malfunctions are manageable via checklists. (not considering other operational aspects).
The operational side is in some aspects easier (operational support via management company), but in others obviously much more complicated (worldwide operation eg. wars, Customs/Immigrations/Quarantine, you name it), and this has to be supervised, and it all falls back on you as the PIC. Signing sh@t is easy, understanding what you are signing for is not so easy (if one cares!).
I rather meant the performance, ice protection, radar, FADEC engines, and all the other stuff which makes piston GA difficult a lot of the time.
The route planning is interesting. A friend in Germany used a German routepack supplier for €35 per leg, before the tools we have in GA came along from c. 2008. Jeppesen also had/have a flight support division which does the planning for you.
Peter wrote:
I rather meant the performance, ice protection, radar, FADEC engines, and all the other stuff which makes piston GA difficult a lot of the time.The route planning is interesting. A friend in Germany used a German routepack supplier for €35 per leg, before the tools we have in GA came along from c. 2008. Jeppesen also had/have a flight support division which does the planning for you
Yes, all those details makes life easier (and a lot safer) – especially in comparison with SEPs.
The route planning part itself is easy enough, it´s getting the required “paperwork” overflight, landing permits, and the rest of the “official” details right the first time, that takes more than a routepack supplier. But this, most of GAs crowd would already have touched on while planning international flights.
The challenge of focusing on the safe conduct of the actual flight operation, as opposed to administrational management in real time, and finding that balance can be delicate thing, especially leading up to departure with pax approaching/arriving.
gallois wrote:
@Yeager I wouldn’t like your job but I’d like to be able to do what you do. If that makes any sense at all.🙂
If you´re saying what I think you´re saying – yes it makes sense! ;-)
GA is wide and varied, so I think it fits right in ! Some GA pilots do fly jets…
As for difficulty vs SEP, in most GA SEP, if you’re in doubt you can always slow down a little, fly stick and rudder and navigate visually as you figure things out. At 400kts with many complex systems, things can hit the fan very quickly. Especially during approach or crossing complex airspace (not at 400kts during approach, but you get the point). If you have already high workload and something starts going wrong (malfunction, turbulence, whatever), I think it’s a lot harder to handle than a slow SEP.
What counterbalances this is the proficiency level (flying much more, recurrent training etc.) and IFR (which streamlines the route and airspace traversal).
Not speaking from experience obviously, but I have a hard time believing it’s « easier » than GA SEP (if that means anything).
Did you get any GPS losses in the unnamed area ?
I have flown RHS in the CJ4 (and a Cessna Mustang) and while you obviously need 100% aircraft systems proficiency (something which is missing in much of GA!) the actual flight is a lot easier than in say the TB20 – because you are high, have radar if needed, loads of power, ice protection, etc. The 400kt is not a problem except in terminal areas where you are working hard, but then you aren’t doing 400kt… you are doing perhaps 150kt.
From my experience, flying a transport category jet, multi crew, recurrent every 6 months, following the SOP, is just relaxing. If in doubt, you can slow down with a jet as well. If there are malfunctions, you have the pilot monitoring to look up solutions. Single pilot in my current plane is madness. I do it, but my hair will soon turn gray :-)
my hair will soon turn gray :-)
Well, mine turned gray, and then white pretty quickly when I started relaxing during multi-crew environment flights… go figure 🤣
maxbc wrote:
As for difficulty vs SEP, in most GA SEP, if you’re in doubt you can always slow down a little, fly stick and rudder and navigate visually as you figure things out. At 400kts with many complex systems, things can hit the fan very quickly. Especially during approach or crossing complex airspace (not at 400kts during approach, but you get the point). If you have already high workload and something starts going wrong (malfunction, turbulence, whatever), I think it’s a lot harder to handle than a slow SEP.
I don´t see speed as playing any role if the difficulty level, it´s just a speed and you need some more space to maneuver. Everybody around you are there to assist you, and if you ask you get the space you need – when you need it. Also in a jet, or most jets, you have another pilot to work with and assist, in the SEP you´re likely the only pilot, and you have to deal with everything solo.
loco wrote:
loco30-Apr-24 11:4727
From my experience, flying a transport category jet, multi crew, recurrent every 6 months, following the SOP, is just relaxing. If in doubt, you can slow down with a jet as well. If there are malfunctions, you have the pilot monitoring to look up solutions. Single pilot in my current plane is madness. I do it, but my hair will soon turn gray :-)
I agree on this.
maxbc wrote:
Did you get any GPS losses in the unnamed area ?
Both outbound and inbound we had to de-select the GPSs due either jamming or spoofing. Primarily in Turkish airspace. The crap was that the GPSs never recovered fully before landing in Switzerland, and of course that day (yesterday 29APR), the ILS for LSMP R03 (I think) was U/S and not Notam´ed, so of course as we got the RNP approach and the estimated precision went outside the RNP value, and caution degraded performance appeared (of course) – and we ended up doing a visual approach! I suppose you could call all of that a bit more complex, but it is what it is. But hey, that´s what you get for about 72 million bucks eh ;-)
As an FAA DPE/Instructor, American Airlines captain and former US Navy F/A-18 Squadron Commander told me, it would be easier to get somebody with no piloting experience ready to do circuits in F/A-18 than to do the same in a Luscombe 8A. He did not appear to be kidding and had experience with both.
